Rogers: Earlier Ukraine intel could have changed policy

3/5/14 5:48 PM EST

An earlier and clearer warning from the U.S. intelligence community about Russia's move into Ukraine could have put the U.S. in a better position to head off that action, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said Wednesday.

We "could have engaged in a more intense diplomatic discussion," Rogers said in an interview. "There are lots of other things we could have done, including by the way getting through a period [where the president] doesn't know exactly what we want to do."

The intelligence chairman said the Obama administration's reaction to the crisis has been "a little bit muddled," and might have been tougher if Russian President Vladmir Putin's decision to send troops into the Crimea region had been more clearly predicted.

"The first shot out of the box was, I think, to stop a planning meeting for the G8 Summit in Sochi," Rogers said. "When a foreign leader is talking about activating troops in a foreign country, you're not likely to get his attention with that one."

Rogers said he's ordered a review of U.S. intelligence on the issue, after some analysts rated the move a significant possibility and others discounted it. He said he did not believe that any U.S. intelligence agency described Putin's move as likely before it actually happened.

"I don't believe this was an intelligence failure," the chairman said. "It's likely to be just, this is the way it goes. This is a hard and difficult issue. I've ordered the review to find out where some of the intrelligence gaps are....In doing analytics, when you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, it's always a little but science and a little bit art. I don't want to impugn what they've done."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told POLITICO Tuesday that she was troubled that Putin's action seemed to take the U.S. by surprise.

"It should not be possible for Russia to walk in and take over the Crimea and it's a done deal by the time we know about it," she said. She did not speak of a formal review but said her panel was talking to the administration about changes to intelligence gathering as a result of the weaknesses pointed up by the recent action in Ukraine.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has pushed back against claims that policymakers were blindsided.

With some critics suggesting that U.S. intelligence agencies don't seem to be able to maintain focus on terrorism and other global threats, Rogers said he believes the country can do both—even with the current intelligence budget of about $70 billion a year. He also said some of the intelligence blind spots may be derived from what he described as the Obama Administration's relative lack of concern about certain dangers.

"There is a balance always on resources" the chairman said. "If the policy is the Iranians are not that bad and the Russians don't have an interest in expandign their borders, that gets translated into how the intelligence posture looks....There's a lot of ground to cover. I think we can do it. We have to prioritize the best way we know how."

UPDATE (Wednesday, 6:49 P.M.): This post has been updated with the DNI reaction.